News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:C++23: The Next C++ Standard by throwaway894345 on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @08:06AM (#36693335)
No, you’ve made your program “verbose” (by a handful of characters) for the sake of clarity—there is no longer ambiguity about what code runs (of course, this assumes you aren’t similarly overloading named functions, which should also be disallowed).
Re:C++23: The Next C++ Standard by josefx on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @12:51PM (#36697548)
Given that your example uses neither namespacing nor explicit typing you seem to preach do as I say, not as I do.
Re:C++23: The Next C++ Standard by throwaway894345 on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @01:27PM (#36698260)
I don't know what example you're talking about. I haven't given an example in this thread. I think you may have me confused with another commenter.
Re:C++23: The Next C++ Standard by josefx on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @02:30PM (#36699501)
so that throwaway suggesting that add is barely longer than + wasn't you?
Re:C++23: The Next C++ Standard by throwaway894345 on Thursday July 13, 2023 @06:24AM (#36707076)
That was me, but I didn’t provide example code that would require namespaces. I don’t understand his your earlier comment makes sense in the context of this thread.